Delhi High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case After 21 Years; Finds Wrestler’s Fatal Scissor Injury Was Accidental During Fight Over Cutting His Hair
Wrestler Dies After Scuffle Over Haircut; Delhi High Court Finds No Murder and Acquits Accused
Facts
The case arose from a seemingly trivial dispute at Railway Akhara, Kishan Ganj, Delhi, on 16 May 2003, which ended in the death of wrestler Sandeep.
According to the initial prosecution version, Sandeep, Narender and two other wrestlers were together in a room at the akhara. After some wrestlers had shaved their heads, Sandeep asked Narender to do the same. When Narender refused, Sandeep picked up a pair of scissors and began cutting Narender’s hair. A struggle followed, during which the scissors entered Sandeep’s chest near his heart.
Significantly, the FIR was initially registered under Section 304 IPC, not murder. After the post-mortem doctor opined that the fatal injury could have been caused by the recovered scissors and was neither accidental nor self-inflicted, the police substituted Section 304 with Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution’s story subsequently changed materially. In a supplementary statement recorded months later, witness Naveen allegedly stated that Narender had deliberately picked up the scissors and struck Sandeep in the chest after threatening to “teach Sandeep a lesson” for slapping him.
The Trial Court convicted Narender of murder in December 2004 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a ₹1,000 fine.
Narender challenged his conviction before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The central question was not whether Sandeep died from the scissor injury—the medical evidence clearly established that he did.
The crucial issue was whether Narender had intentionally inflicted the fatal injury and possessed the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to constitute murder or culpable homicide.
The Court also had to consider whether the prosecution could rely upon hostile eyewitnesses, medical evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act to bridge the gap concerning how exactly the scissors entered Sandeep’s chest.
Appellant’s Arguments
Narender argued that there was no previous enmity, motive or dispute between him and Sandeep. The entire incident arose suddenly over the trivial issue of cutting hair.
He maintained that Sandeep was the aggressor and was attempting to forcibly cut his hair. Narender was merely trying to prevent him from doing so when the fatal injury occurred during the resulting struggle.
A major weakness highlighted by the defence was that the two principal prosecution witnesses, Neeraj and Naveen, turned hostile and did not testify that Narender deliberately stabbed Sandeep.
Narender also relied upon his immediate conduct: rather than fleeing, he accompanied the injured Sandeep first to Malik Nursing Home and thereafter to ESI Hospital. According to the defence, this conduct was inconsistent with an intention to murder him.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State defended the murder conviction, arguing that the evidence established Narender’s presence, the scuffle between him and Sandeep, and the fatal injury occurring during that confrontation.
It argued that merely because Neeraj and Naveen did not describe the precise manner in which the injury was inflicted did not require their entire testimony to be discarded. Their evidence still established that Narender and Sandeep were fighting immediately before the fatal injury.
The State also relied heavily upon the medical evidence. The fatal injury was approximately 13 cm deep, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and compatible with the scissors recovered from the scene.
Accordingly, the State argued that the circumstances cumulatively established Narender’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court emphasised an important distinction between proving the cause of death and proving criminal responsibility for causing that death.
The medical evidence conclusively showed that Sandeep died from a penetrating scissor injury near his heart. But medical evidence alone could not establish that Narender intentionally inflicted that injury.
Hostile Witness Evidence
The Court reiterated that merely because a witness turns hostile does not mean his entire testimony disappears from the record. A court may rely upon those portions that remain credible and trustworthy.
But here, the reliable portions of Neeraj and Naveen’s testimony established only:
- Narender and Sandeep were present together;
- a dispute arose over cutting hair;
- a scuffle occurred;
- Sandeep suffered a scissor injury during that scuffle; and
- Sandeep was attempting to cut Narender’s hair against his wishes.
Crucially, neither witness established that Narender had the scissors in his hand when the fatal injury was inflicted.
Accused Was Not the Aggressor
This finding became particularly important.
The High Court found that the evidence actually indicated that Sandeep was the person who picked up the scissors and attempted to cut Narender’s hair without his consent, while Narender resisted.
The Court therefore expressly found:
“Appellant was therefore not the aggressor.”
Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the crucial transition from an ordinary scuffle to an intentional stabbing.
Section 106 Cannot Rescue an Incomplete Prosecution Case
The Trial Court had relied significantly upon Narender’s inability to explain how Sandeep suffered the fatal injury while the two were fighting.
The High Court rejected this approach.
It held that Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving foundational circumstances establishing guilt. An accused’s inability to explain an occurrence cannot substitute for affirmative prosecution evidence showing that he committed the offence.
This is one of the most important legal propositions emerging from the judgment.
Precedent Analysis
Narender relied upon Tunda v. Rex, Rakesh Dutt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, and Arvind Kumar v. State of NCT Delhi in support of his challenge to the murder conviction.
The State relied upon Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Lokendra Singh v. State of M.P., and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, principally in support of its contention that the cumulative circumstances and available witness evidence sufficiently connected Narender with the fatal injury.
Ultimately, however, the High Court’s decision turned principally upon the evidentiary record itself: nobody reliably established that Narender held the scissors and intentionally stabbed Sandeep.
Court’s Reasoning
Several circumstances cumulatively created reasonable doubt.
First, the two principal eyewitnesses did not see Narender inflicting the fatal injury. Both turned hostile on material aspects of the prosecution’s later version.
Second, the scissors were recovered from the scene—not from Narender’s possession. Recovery therefore did not establish that Narender wielded them when the fatal injury occurred.
Third, after being injured, Sandeep himself told Dr. V.K. Malik that he had suffered the scissor injury “in a scuffle”. He did not tell the doctor that Narender had stabbed him. The Court held that while this omission alone would not exonerate Narender, it assumed considerable significance when combined with the failure of the eyewitnesses to explain how the injury occurred.
Fourth, there was no previous enmity or ill-will suggesting a motive to murder Sandeep.
Fifth, Narender did not flee after the incident. He accompanied Sandeep to Malik Nursing Home and then ESI Hospital for treatment.
The Court therefore found no evidence proving either an intention to cause Sandeep’s death or an intention to cause bodily injury likely to result in death.
Remarkably, the Court went further than merely reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide.
It held that even culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC was not established.
Section 80 IPC — Accident
The Court ultimately accepted the incident as an accident.
It held that, at the highest, the prosecution had established that Sandeep suffered the scissor injury accidentally during the scuffle, without criminal intention or knowledge attributable to Narender.
Consequently, the Court invoked Section 80 IPC, which protects an act occurring accidentally or by misfortune in the lawful performance of a lawful act performed with proper care and caution.
The Court concluded:
“Thus, no offence was committed by the appellant in view of Section 80 of the IPC, as the death was purely accidental.”
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court completely acquitted Narender.
It did not merely convert his Section 302 conviction into a lesser offence. Instead, it held that the prosecution had failed to establish any criminal offence at all because the fatal injury was proved, at the highest, to have occurred accidentally during the scuffle.
The Court found no clinching evidence that Narender possessed the scissors, intentionally inflicted the fatal injury, or possessed the intention or knowledge necessary for culpable homicide.
Accordingly, the 18 December 2004 conviction and 21 December 2004 sentence were set aside, and Narender was acquitted of the charge.
Case Details
Case: Narender v. State
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: CRL.A. 45/2005
CNR: DLHC010510902005
Coram: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Reserved: 24 August 2026
Pronounced: 15 September 2026
Original Conviction: Section 302 IPC — life imprisonment
Key Provision Applied: Section 80 IPC — Accident
Result: Appeal allowed; murder conviction and life sentence set aside; Narender acquitted.
